Claims that the EF can be used to detect design are now being made on that thread. I've (as OM) asked for an example, but so far no examples have been forthcoming. What a surprise. The excuses are laughable.

Quote

In summary, you went straight from my post to a your own request for information from me on the EF to satisfy your own sick curiousity. You replied without even responding to my argument at all. You evaded it totally. A complete distraction and an attack on a straw-man. First, you answered your own question by saying what I no doubt will do (go silent), then accused IDers of ALWAYS doing the same- highlighting your class bigotry. After that, you personally interpreted the reason for such hypothetical actions only to your own idiosyncratic satisfaction, and than pined over what I would say next in turn.

Quote

You didn't get or discuss anything out of my post but the personal mental distraction ensuing from your own personal fixation on a perceived need to disprove a personal prejudice of yours (specifically, your idiosyncratically determined list of needs for information proving the utility of the EF). When I referred to Dembski's filter, I alleged that you did not have the intellectual sophistication to interpret M's reference to statistics as a reference to it. And that's why you criticized M: You were incapable of understanding his succinct point!

Your ability to comprehend ID arguments appears routinely to be inept and highly distracted by your own self-aggrandizement. Other evolutionists can understand and respond to points made about them. Only you can't.

I am not here to placate you who do not respond to critiques except with distractions. You completely discarded my points and substituted your own concerns- repeatedly. These were not requests for clarification. They were your own idiosyncratic points. I take it to be your modus operandi.

I will get you references on Dembski's EF, which you already have, liar! And the EF wasn't written to satisfy your dogmatic, prejudiced, malicious, hypocritical, idiosyncratic, circular-reasoned, childish views about what is science and what isn't. You have chosen to not address my points at all; what collateral do you have to offer to get your own addressed? A taunt?

Look at the dates on the EF. How many years will you give us and Demski to apply his EF into a full-blown peer-reviewed article published in a scientific journal people of your ilk won't permit? Oh, you will require the full loaf before you yield an inch. I don't think you even give a 'specific', hypocrite! I responded about EF, which you so much as said I wouldn't, liar! The truth is it is just never to your satisfaction. Just like Meyer did with other evolutionist hypocrities in the Smithsonian article! The trouble is: Evolutionists can never see their own li(v)es or each others'.